I move:
(1) That it is expedient in view of the importance of allowing the maximum public participation, political accountability on such issues, for example, as the need to reaffirm the principle of neutrality of Ireland in international affairs and to declare that Ireland's foreign and defence policies continue to be based on this principle, demilitarisation, and development strategy and providing an opportunity for debate in the foreign affairs of the State that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Policy) consisting of seven Members of Seanad Éireann and eight Members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to review, examine and report to each House with its recommendations on all aspects of foreign policy of the State.
(2) That the Joint Committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any matters comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution.
(3) That provision be made for the appointment of substitutes to act for members of the Joint Committee or each sub-committee who are unable to attend particular meetings.
(4) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee, previous to the commencement of business, shall elect one of its members to be Chairman, who shall have only one vote.
(5) That all questions in the Joint Committee and in each sub-committee shall be determined by a majority of votes of the members present and voting and in the event of there being an equality of votes the question shall be decided in the negative.
(6) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular inquiries.
(7) That any Member of either House may attend and be heard in the proceedings of the Joint Committee or in each sub-committee without having a right to vote, subject to the prior consent of the Joint Committee or the sub-committee as the case may be.
(8) That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have power to print and publish from time to time minutes of evidence taken before it together with such related documents as it thinks fit.
(9) That every report of the Joint Committee shall on adoption by the Joint Committee, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas forthwith whereupon the Joint Committee shall be empowered to print and publish such report together with such related documents as it thinks fit.
(10) That no document relating to matters comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution received by the clerk to the Joint Committee or to each sub-committee shall be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the Joint committee or the sub-committee as the case may be.
(11) That the quorum of the Joint Committee shall be four of whom at least one shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann and one shall be a Member of Dáil Éireann and that the quorum of each sub-committee shall be three at least one of whom shall be a Member of Seanad Éireann and one a Member of Dáil Éireann.
Tugann sé áthas mór dom an Rún seo a mholadh, atá curtha síos in ainmneacha na Seanadóirí atá ina mbaill de phairtí An Lucht Oibre.
In moving this resolution I think we could not have a more appropriate day. On the one hand it is International Human Rights day and, on the other hand, it is also the day on which the other House is moving towards concluding its consideration of the Single European Act. The inter-purpose of this motion is:
That it is expedient in view of the importance of allowing the maximum public participation, political accountability on such issues, for example, as the need to reaffirm the principle of neutrality of Ireland in international affairs and to declare that Ireland's foreign and defence policies continue to be based on this principle, demilitarisation, and development strategy and providing an opportunity for debate in the foreign affairs of the State that a Joint Committee (which shall be called the Joint Committee on Foreign Policy) consisting of seven Members of Seanad Éireann and eight Members of Dáil Éireann be appointed to review, examine and report to each House with its recommendations on all aspects of foreign policy of the State.
The rest of the resolution is mainly technical but paragraph (6) is important in so far as, drawing on our experience of committees in this House, it suggests the giving to such a committee a number of powers which would get over obstacles that have arisen in practice in the operation of some other committees. Paragraph (6) states:
That the Joint Committee and each sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and, subject to the consent of the Minister for the Public Service, to engage the services of persons with specialist or technical knowledge to assist it for the purpose of particular inquiries.
There are 11 paragraphs in the motion. Paragraph (10) is equally important because it equally extends the powers of committees. It reads:
That no document relating to matters comprehended by paragraph (1) of this resolution received by the clerk to the Joint Committee or to each sub-committee shall be withdrawn or altered without the knowledge and approval of the Joint Committee or the sub-committee as the case may be.
This effectively gives a discretion to the committee to decide matters about which it should concern itself.
I want to flesh out some of the reasons why this motion has been placed before the House and in doing so I want to explain some of the basic principles initially. The important point about there being maximum public participation and political accountability in foreign policy has been adverted to in practically every parliamentary assembly I know of in Europe. Perhaps the most radical expression of this is in the case of Denmark where elements of foreign policy are initiated in the assembly and thereafter go on to be executed by the professionals who execute Danish foreign policy. We are far short of that. We are at the other end of the spectrum. We are out of step in relation to many countries in Europe in not having a full joint committee on foreign policy, as exists in the British House of Commons. I believe there should be support now for achieving the establishment of this committee.
When I say "the maximum public participation" again and again in my time as spokesman for foreign affairs of the Labour Party, the point has been raised by many people who write to me and ask what is Ireland's position on one matter or another, be it on apartheid, on a vote at the United Nations, on the position we were taking in relation to Europe and so forth. I have often tried to explain to them the logic behind a particular position taken and sometimes — in fact quite frequently — I have been unable to explain why we voted, abstained or opposed a particular matter. I regard that as setting a tension inevitably between two quite different things which have been discussed in other countries and which arise in the inevitable evolution of parliaments, that is, the distinction between the practice of diplomacy which is, of its nature, secret and the execution of foreign policy which responds to the moral temper of the people. For example, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a generous response to breaches of human rights, not only in Ireland but universally. I am very conscious of that. The evidence for this lies in the fact that many countries seek to abuse the concept of human rights and use it as a term of abuse, one against the other. Equally in relation to racism, there is a common position now in Ireland, thankfully, that opposes apartheid. In relation to development aid, people are moved by the appalling scenes that are presented on their television sets which show horrific circumstances of death.
The whole thrust of this motion, therefore, is to allow that moral response and the concern that exists in the foreign policy area, in the great areas I mentioned. There are questions such as what is our contribution in prosecuting positive neutrality? What do we mean by it? I used the term in the motion "the principle of neutrality". I am speaking about positive neutrality. I am not interested in hedged phrases, such as remaining neutral in matters of military importance or matters of military significance. That is a condition I do not apply to neutrality. Here, I am drawing on a long tradition which goes back to Tom Johnson, which goes right through all of the leaders of the Labour Party, including one of my predecessors as spokesman on Foreign Affairs and as Chairman of the Labour Party, Michael Keys, of Limerick, who spoke about neutrality being important as a major contribution towards making wars impossible.
Therefore, the neutrality I am speaking of is not conditional in the sense of being available as a negotiating point for the unification of this country, or conditional in another sense when this extraordinary phrase is use, that we are on the one hand militarily neutral but not ideologically neutral. Ideological neutrality is left usually without the specification in geographical terms as to where it is assumed freedom lies, what the definition of democracy is, and so forth.
All of these issues such as questions of neutrality and the other great topics I mentioned should be debated. I make reference to demilitarisation and to development strategy in particular. Here all of us have been appalled by the enormous wastage of human and physical resources in the war effort. Should our response stop at being a moral one? I am not arguing that these moral expressed opinions do not translate into political practice. What I am saying is that there is a need for an integration in our policy and that integration will be provided when voluntary and expert agencies will have a committee — as exists in other parliaments, I emphasise — to which to come and offer their evidence and indicate their support.
I said previously it is easy to move people by telling them such facts as that 40,000 children die every day from malnutrition, most of them under the age of one year and, for every one of those children who die, six will live in conditions of chronic poverty condemned to blindness, illness, illiteracy, hunger and lack of shelter in this developing world or that before the end of the century we will have comdemned 650 million or 700 million people to conditions of malnutrition. These are facts which move people instantly. Equally so do facts on armaments — that one scientist in five will spend his or her intellectual energies in the war effort while, at the same time, there are crying needs in the development area. It is not possible to prosecute the project of peace and demilitarisation without its being linked to development. I think we would agree on that.
It is not possible either to have a moral response at home and not have it reflected overtly in foreign policy in terms of a required political response. I am very worried about a number of aspects that bother me in this regard. A number of injurious fractures have arisen in relation to some of these issues. May I just cite some of them? In relation to the issue of neutrality itself, how is neutrality balanced with the requirements of our industrialisation policies? I wish it was not balanced at all, that there was never a condition placed on it. I know from my own experience on many occasions in the past when those of us in this House who believed in peace took a position that was critical of some of the major investors in this country, the messages came quietly but regularly to elected representatives in this House and in the other House that we should draw in our horns, that it was not the time to speak of human rights in Nicaragua; it was not the time to speak of the ignoring of the International Court of Justice at the Hague; nor was it the time to speak of armed mercenaries. Yet the facts of these breaches explode on our television screens.
If we have a policy it should be an integrated one. That is my simple plea. I cannot for the life of me see any evidence of how we can achieve this as parliamentarians, not to speak of members of the public. You might say — and I do not want my case to fall on this one — there is a committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities who deal with some matters which are relevant. I was a member of that committee when it was originally established. When the committee reported as it did in the past on the Dooge Report and others, we had an opportunity for some debate. That is not what I have in mind. The terms of reference of the committee I am suggesting enable them to address the issue of foreign policy in the broadest sense. When one looks at the conditions I have laid down in paragraphs 2 to 11 I want the committee in establishing such powers to draw on the experience of other committees.
I welcomed the establishment of the committee system in this House but I said at the time that the committee system must be given teeth. It is very interesting to note that when the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Privilege and Procedure) Bill, 1976, establishing the committee system was introduced in its initial form, it contained a section which would give power to committees to summon witnesses by letters delivered to them personally by registered post, to examine witnesses and require witnesses to be present and so forth. Equally I argue that we need to go much further than that and enable witnesses to come and enjoy privilege before the committee so that the committee may be able to do its work to the fullest extent possible. When we think of the Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies there were occasions on which witnesses did not come. There are occasions when the committees can be manipulated by the non-availability of a Minister of the day. It is, therefore, terribly important that the committee that is established has the powers I mention.
When I was drafting this resolution I looked at the experience of other countries where the committee system has been established and there is a commitment to it. The members who serve that committee are professionals, independent of the process of government. This is the norm in many countries, the idea being that the Parliament itself will be able to enjoy a full and unrestricted scrutiny of what is the regular practice of the Government of the day. That is a full committee system. I am putting that provision contained in the document prepared in 1976 in its original form back in and suggesting that this committee has that power.
There will be enormous advantages to this committee. Among these will be that it will be able to draw on the great anxiety that exists at present for political education which will include aspects fo foreign policy. The proceedings of this committee will be studied by people in places where foreign policy, thankfully, is becoming a matter of great interest. If one looks at the published works on the history of Irish foreign policy, one finds that people have pointed out that it has been necessary on occasions for people interested in foreign policy to sneak in and out of the country in case people found they were missing from their constituencies. Thankfully, those days are changing. Our eyes have been opened as the media have opened the windows of the world exposing us to the realities of war, the needs of development, the hunger I described and the great challenges that face us. There is a new atmosphere now and we should take advantage of it and make foreign policy a matter of regular and vibrant debate in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The existence of the committee is absolutely essential in this regard.
For instance, we should resolve the issue of neutrality once and for all. I admire the work of the Royal Irish Academy but I recall their debate on neutrality. Unfortunately I have not had the pleasure of making a contribution to the group in relation to any aspect of foreign policy but I look forward to doing this in the future. Their discussion on neutrality was very interesting but it was all somewhat tendentious. If the papers that were read on that occasion were presented to a foreign policy committee we would all benefit, we would have a full discussion, we would be able to talk about the quality of evidence, what was a matter of comjecture and what was a matter of fact.
If Members of this House need one example above all else in favour of what I am saying, would they not agree that the atmosphere in which the Single European Act has been discussed in this country vindicates the establishment of a committee? I read with great care the document produced by the Government on the Single European Act and the explanatory guide. I have read other articles on the Single European Act. I have been interested in trying to tease out the implications in relation to the three great principles that are a matter of debate — the question of neutrality, military and defence alliance, the implications of the single market and the protection of employment, and the question as to whether, having removed all tariffs, you can do what has never happened in history: restructure competition so as to give away benefits to the peripheral regions. I want to be convinced and I feel that a committee like this might enable us to hear all the arguments. Let us have them fully and let us leave them unemotionally.
On that issue I would like to see the committee begin by taking up the first of those. It might come to the conclusion — a conclusion which my party favour — that the position of neutrality be given a legal basis, that it be put into the Constitution. I am very conscious that we are on the eve of debating the 50th anniversary of the 1937 Constitution and I have long said that it is not a Constitution that we should lug around on our shoulders for ever. There is not a specific provision for equality of men and women in that Constitution. Be that as it may, I believe we should discuss the appropriateness or otherwise of a constitutional affirmation of our position on neutrality.
When I was a Member of the other House and I sought information as to why we voted on particular matters, I was not always able, as an elected representative, to find that information. As in so many other things, there has grown up in Ireland what I would call the fallacy of expertise. The suggestion is often made that expertise in some matters arises in practice and that practice is governed by criteria of pragmatism. What I am saying is that we are surrounded by an anxiety which is based on idealism by many people to understand and participate in a world made safe against war, a world of peace where the issues of development will be applied. I am not arguing against pragmatism. I am simply an old-fashioned logician.
I believe I was elected here to discuss foreign policy and that the other House has elected Members to discuss foreign policy. It should be debated in these Houses and on a complex matter this committee should exist and we should attend it with seven Members from the Seanad and eight Members from the Dáil. We should let experts come and we should let professionals come and we should see what our policy is. We should let the public have the full view of why we hold particular views on any matter. I cannot see how anybody can be afraid of this process. Of course, the response will be that the matters discussed are often so delicate and the nuances are so great that really one could not trust people to know what it is that we are achieving.
I have so often read the phrase, "We have explained to our partners our feelings on this matter and we are working towards a position" and so on. I am sure much of moral significance has been achieved in this regard, and I would not want to endanger any of it, but I am not going to pay the price of not having accountability on foreign policy for such a process. I feel a little irritated this evening about that matter. I am very angry at the manner in which some of the aspects of European political co-operation have been discussed in the last year or two. We had an opportunity to look at some aspects of it here when the reports came from the Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities but it was hardly full enough, for example, in relation to the single market and the meaning of terms like "cohesion" and so forth. I would have liked a much fuller debate on all of that.
There are many matters outside of Europe. There is the business of our attitude towards issues that arise in Africa. There was a long saga as to what the Government's position was in relation to South Africa. There is the question that arises in relation to Nicaragua. I am not in the business of meeting people at the airport, bringing them in and managing to have them received by officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs to whom I am extremely grateful. My point about it is that I would like to discuss the events that are taking place, for example, the hiring of mercenaries, the question of the displacement of funds. In the absence of this committee I am left open to the charge that has unfortunately been made against people like me before, that people are weary of listening to anti-American speeches and so forth. I am not making those speeches but I feel that as a parliamentarian I am entitled to enjoy the mechanisms of the majority of Parliaments, that is, by having a committee who would deal with these matters and would discuss them.
I want to say something about the amendment which, I am afraid, I would ask the movers to consider withdrawing. I think it would be unacceptable for a reason that perhaps was unintended. The amendment suggests the deletion of all words after "that". In doing so it deletes the first part of paragraph 1. It deletes even the reference to the maximum public participation, political accountability, the reference to neutrality, to foreign and defence policies based on the principle of neutrality, demilitarisation and development strategy. That is not left in in the amendment and, knowing the generosity of my colleagues on this side of the House, this is probably an oversight. I presume that their amendment was probably more directed to the structure of the committee. The amendment suggests that:
Seanad Éireann is of the opinion that consideration be given to the establishment of a Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in order to promote as wide a consensus as possible on all matters of Foreign Policy and that informal all-party discussions be initiated to discuss the terms of reference, the structure and the procedures of the proposed Committee on Foreign Affairs.
That formulation would do credit to Sir Humphrey because it not only stops us from doing something in the lifetime of this Government, it also involves us in a process of consultation that would so erode everything that is aimed for in the motion that with the greatest respect I suggest it is not likely to amend or approve the basic motion and reluctantly, I would have to say it is not acceptable either to myself or to the group for whom I speak.
I hope we will have support from all sides of the House for the kind of committee I mention. It is now likely that the Single European Act will be ratified. Do the Members of the House not agree that the existence of this committee will be even more necessary in those circumstances than it is now? Surely in relation to all of the issues that I have mentioned, for example, if you take the welding together of common positions even in relation to development, will that not be necessary to be considered by such a committee? What about the increasingly difficult circumstances of retaining our neutrality in practice? In that regard I hope the committee will flush out something that is becoming a little wearisome. There are different views on neutrality. There are those who believe in positive neutrality, and there are those who do not believe in it at all. To their credit they have been speaking out lately. They said this whole thing is quite meaningless. I want to hear the views of people as to whether it is useful for a while, or it is conditional, or so forth. That debate should take place. Otherwise we are in danger of eroding democracy and Parliament itself, using language that is devoid of content and is devoid of some commitment.
Therefore, the entire thrust of this motion is to try, while allowing professional practice within the diplomatic realm, to restore the position of Parliament, to allow parliamentarians to debate foreign policy, to allow the public to see parliamentarians debating policy which reflects and responds to the values they hold and the concerns they have. Once the policy has been decided it should be executed with the professionalism which has always been of an enormously high standard within our Department of Foreign Affairs for which I have the greatest respect.
If we do not do this, not only will the process be secret, not accessible, not contribute to education, not build on what we have achieved in relation to public awareness and development, but it will be worse than that. It will mean we will have a policy that means something in some circumstances. For example, I might ask a simple question. I do not know how to answer a letter somebody wrote to me — well, I do, I have answered it — which asked the question as to whether when industrialists are being wooed in the different investing countries we ever feel it necessary to say we are a neutral country. It is a good question from a person who is a citizen, interested in industrialisation, interested in peace, interested in human rights, interested in all of the issues of disarmament and so on.
I am not arguing for any crude simplicity to replace what might be regarded as a sophisticated complexity that has served us well over the years. I am expressing a view that has been debated within the Labour Party, that has been accepted by them as policy, but far more important, there is a desire among the public and there is an anxiety on the part of every parliamentarian in either of these two Houses with whom I have ever travelled abroad to be involved in forming foreign policy. This will simply, very modestly, without any great changes put us into line with other Parliaments in Europe.
